Bill O'Reilly was on the Letterman show on Friday, and Letterman made it very clear that he thinks O'Reilly is at best disingenuous, at worst dishonest in advocating for the war in Iraq. It was very nearly gripping, compelling television, because people like O'Reilly rarely put themselves in a position where they're actually going to be confronted with dissent. Especially when they're not in the power seat.
And people like Letterman rarely take political positions more advanced than whatever the current caricature of a political figure is in the media. Like, George W. Bush is stupid. Bill Clinton is horny...
The reason it wasn't all that charged is mainly down to the fact that Letterman kept shooting himself in the foot with jokes about how he's just a big dumb guy like O'Reilly, himself. At first it made me wish that he would read a book (or even a blog) before getting into something like this. Because in a weird way, he ended up looking like the worst kind of teenaged political protester, all passion with no information.
But now that I come to think about it, I don't believe Letterman actually is all that uninformed. I remember reading in a profile of him that he habitually listens to the BBC world news service on the radio.
(Of course, that profile was written before Letterman's son was born. It's entirely possible, and understandable if, that changed his radio listening habits).
And I don't believe you get where he has gotten by being a stupid man. So, surely he must have had better ammunition at his disposal than he chose to use, for some reason. I assume it's because his instincts as an intelligent, sensitive man were at war with those as a broadcaster and host.
You see Jon Stewart getting caught between them sometimes too. But he's generally better at making the points he wants to make, and they're usually well-informed points, while remaining a gracious host.
Mark Evanier has some observations about the segment, and a link to a video and fact check of what O'Reilly said, here.
No comments:
Post a Comment